The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is demanding an investigation into an alleged misuse of taxpayer funds by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
AFEC published a press release on Tuesday accusing Fontes of misusing taxpayer funds by filing a “politically motivated” brief in the ongoing Arizona Supreme Court case, Smith v. Fontes. The organization also requested that Fontes recuse himself from all ballot tabulation procedures concerning the other initiatives.
“By filing his brief at the Arizona Supreme Court, Fontes unequivocally signaled his position that 40,000 duplicate signatures should be ignored and counted in favor of passing Proposition 140,” said AFEC in its press release. “In short, to Fontes, the ends justify the means to ensure that Arizona’s elections system can be operated like California’s radical system.”
AFEC and other critics compare the components within Proposition 140 to current election procedures exercised by California.
Proposition 140 seeks to remove the partisan split in primary voting — instead implementing open, or “jungle,” primaries — and determine winners using ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank their preferred candidates each election until one candidate accrues over 50 percent of the vote.
That claim of political motivation stems from Fontes’ role as a “team member” for the nonprofit organization (Save Democracy) supporting the political action committee (Make Elections Fair Arizona) pushing Proposition 140. Those two entities are also united by the involvement of Sarah Smallhouse as their president and treasurer, respectively: a longtime Democrat donor from Tucson who served as leadership for a University of Arizona board and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.
Fontes’ brief petitioned the court to count any votes cast for Proposition 140, even if the ongoing review of the ballot-qualifying signatures determined that there weren’t enough signatures gathered. Fontes argued that the proposition should be considered valid since the ballots were already being printed with the contested proposition on them.
“Once the ballots have gone to print, it is in the hands of Arizona’s voters,” said Fontes. “The person contesting an issue (or candidate) can make a case to the voters, but the Courts cannot usurp the voters’ decision once it goes to them.”
AFEC sued to stop Proposition 140 earlier this summer after reportedly discovering that over half of the gathered signatures were in violation of state law — around 40,000 duplicates. Should all those alleged duplicate signatures be removed, the proposition would lack the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot.
AFEC President Scot Mussi said in a statement that Fontes’ brief amounted to the secretary of state taking a side in a ballot measure rather than maintaining an impartial role in the elections process.
“Far from acting as a fair and impartial elections chief, Fontes has officially taken a side in a controversial measure that would be potentially on the ballot, showing Arizonans that he is using taxpayer dollars to make the case for a California-style amendment that would fundamentally transform the way we vote and select our candidates for public office,” said Mussi. “This is not saving democracy; this is trampling the will of the people and the laws that govern how elections should be executed.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
There are plenty of problems with the Arizona Commerce Authority. Since its inception in 2011, criticisms were raised concerning its freewheeling powers to dole out taxpayer money with practically no legislative oversight and broad exemptions from important guardrails such as the prohibition of using outside counsel (rather than the Attorney General’s office.) These issues have resurfaced over the years in critical Auditor General reports that have highlighted the insufficient reporting and record keeping for the administration of grants and awards provided by the agency to private businesses. This led to a mere 2-year extension of the agency in 2016, and a controversial reauthorization in 2018 when Republicans and Democrats alike banged the table for reforms. And most recently, the agency has come under fire by the Attorney General herself, for unconstitutional gifts in the way of wining and dining and Super Bowl tickets for CEOs.
Despite consistent criticism across the aisle and over the years, the ACA has evaded any real substantial reforms. That could very well change this year.
There now seems to be bipartisan interest in reining in an unaccountable agency with a $226M budget and a multi-million-dollar slush fund…
A contentious fight is brewing in the Arizona legislature, the possible reauthorization of the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA). Governor Hobbs has made the reauthorization a top priority of her administration this session, mentioning it in her State of the State address. But the debate has an ironic element considering the history of its inception.
In 2011, the state was crawling out of a crippling recession, having lost literally hundreds of thousands of jobs and even selling off the state Capitol buildings to dig out of a deficit. The legislature, in collaboration with the Brewer Administration, introduced an omnibus bill sold as a “jobs package” which refashioned the bureaucratic Department of Commerce into the Arizona Commerce Authority, and incorporated both new targeted tax credit programs and incentives, as well as phased in corporate income and commercial property tax cuts.
Democrats a Decade Ago Opposed the ACA
The bill at the time was uniformly opposed by Democrats, including then Representative Katie Hobbs. Republicans mostly coalesced around the bill, with a handful of key conservatives voting in opposition of the legislation, largely in protest of the corporate welfare and multi-million-dollar “deal closing” fund with no legislative oversight. For those unfamiliar with the deal closing fund, it is a large pot of money appropriated to the Director of the Commerce Authority to throw at corporations to convince them to relocate to Arizona.
After the ACA was passed and signed into law, it would seem that only a few conservative voices and the Club itself would prove prophetic at the lack of oversight and inevitable gift clause violations, which is a constitutional protection from the government subsidizing private industry…
The U.S. military is facing a dangerous recruitment crisis. It seems to me, the main contributing factor to this crisis has been the Left’s insistence on infusing politics into our military. Under President Biden’s leadership, the Pentagon has been more interested in fighting the culture war at home than equipping our service men and women in their mission of deterring war and protecting our nation.
Earlier this year, President Biden’s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memo to use taxpayer funds for paid time off, lodging, and travel expenses for military service members and their families to receive elective abortions. A clear example of the Left’s push to prioritize a political agenda over longstanding federal policy, this memo was issued without necessary congressional approvals and in spite of the Hyde amendment, a decades-old federal law prohibiting federal funding for abortion that even President Biden himself supported during his tenure in the U.S. Senate. The simple fact is that the Defense Department has no authority to use our taxpayer dollars to facilitate abortion services—in fact, existing federal law makes doing so illegal.
In response, Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama has placed holds on the confirmation of certain military promotions to both demand Secretary Austin rescind the policy and also bring attention to the wider issue of the politicization of our military. Rather than addressing these clear problems and violations of federal law, Arizona’s own Senators have continued to play politics, repeat Democrat talking points, or avoid the issue altogether.
It is the policies of the Biden administration that are the real threat to military readiness and undercutting our national defense capabilities, and that is what Senator Tuberville’s holds are rightly pointing out.
As a former officer in the Army, I can tell you Arizona’s veterans and active-duty service members understand firsthand that politicizing the military is a problem—not a solution. Yet, our U.S. Senators in Arizona have both apparently missed that message.
In July, Senator Mark Kelly claimed blocking of certain military promotions “is doing real damage to our national security right now” and that it will “have cascading effects for years.” But Senator Kelly is fear mongering, plain and simple.
Similarly, Senator Kyrsten Sinema has indicated that she wants to find a “middle ground” between Senator Tuberville and President Biden.
When the military prioritizes social justice instead of operational readiness, uses drag queens as recruiting ambassadors, and spends 6 million man-hours pushing DEI and CRT, it’s no wonder confidence in our military has already dropped by double-digits since Joe Biden took office. Common sense would tell you that is no way to foster recruitment.
We can continue down President Biden’s destructive path of turning our military into a social experiment or we can choose a path that helps our military get back to fulfilling its mission of keeping our country safe.
I stand with Senator Tommy Tuberville.
Curtiss Leroy is a resident of Tucson, AZ, and a Heritage Action Sentinel. He is a former officer in the U.S. Army, serving in Alaska and Vietnam.
A new report released by the taxpayer-watchdog group Goldwater Institute is calling on the Arizona Legislature to address the use of public money by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns for purposes which go against the public’s interest.
“Taxpayer-Funded League Lobbies Against Taxpayer Interests,” the report by Jon Riches and Jenna Bentley, details the use of taxpayer funds by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns in ways which represent the interests of public officials and government bureaucrats rather than the interests of the taxpaying public.
“The League uses taxpayer dollars to help fund its political efforts, frequently lobbying in favor of or against proposed legislation at the Arizona Legislature,” according to Riches, the Goldwater Institute Director of National Litigation, and Bentley, the Goldwater Institute Director of Government Affairs. “While the League supports and opposes bills sponsored by members of both political parties, its agenda is decidedly anti-freedom, pro-government, and partisan.”
The situation can easily be addressed if state lawmakers approve three reforms, the report states.
“It is time to protect taxpayers by prohibiting taxpayer-funded lobbying activities while also increasing transparency and accountability when local governments advocate at the legislature through membership organization,” Riches and Bentley assert.
To start, the report recommends extending the current ban enacted in 2017 on using taxpayer funds to pay for lobbyists who represent the state government. The ban should also apply to local government governments and the League, Riches and Bentley propose.
“Cities and towns could still voluntarily join together to discuss issues of mutual concern—but do so without expending taxpayer resources on lobbying,” they say.
Then, there needs to be state legislation passed to address the disproportionate rate of dues paid to the League by smaller municipalities. This occurs because overall dues are capped for Arizona’s larger cities, resulting in a higher per capita rate for citizens of smaller communities.
“Residents of small cities and towns should not bear a disproportionate burden in financing the League and its activities,” the report states. “After all, larger cities receive the same services from the League that smaller cities do.”
The third recommendation put forth by Riches and Bentley calls on lawmakers to ensure better transparency by the League, which is a nonprofit organization comprised exclusively of local governments. In fact, more than a dozen League employees are currently active in the Arizona State Retirement System (ASRS) and several retired League employees receive ASRS pensions.
“League employees themselves are technically private employees, but in many ways they enjoy the benefits of government employment,” the report notes. “Given that the League’s membership is comprised solely of public bodies and its employees receive government perks, one would expect the League to be subject to the same transparency and accountability measures that apply to other public entities.”
These reforms, according to Riches and Bentley, would go a long way toward ensuring tax dollars are used to advance the public’s business, not to amplify the voice of special interest lobbyists.
“The Arizona Legislature can protect municipal taxpayers from the abuses that occur when local governments use taxpayer resources to lobby state government and blur the line between public and private activities,” the report recommends. “It is time to protect taxpayers by prohibiting taxpayer-funded lobbying activities while also increasing transparency and accountability when local governments advocate at the legislature through membership organizations.”
